Dear Fellow Gun Rights Supporter,
As you know, we have very high standards for people who are asking to be hired for public office. OFF PAC rarely endorses candidates but always holds them accountable.
We are getting close to the final days to vote in the primary election. If you are a registered Republican, we strongly urge you cast your vote for Senator Jason Atkinson for Governor.
Of the Republican candidates, only Atkinson has a solid record on gun rights. Of the three major Republican candidates, only Atkinson went on the record and returned the OFF PAC candidate survey. (Oddly, Ron Saxton completed a six page NRA survey, but refused to answer a six question OFF survey.)
Oregon Firearms Federation: Oregon's only no compromise gun lobby
11 comments:
We've seen what the government can do in a disaster and it's not pretty.
New York Times | September 8 2005
NEW ORLEANS, Sept. 8 - Waters were receding across this flood-beaten city today as police officers began confiscating weapons, including legally registered firearms, from civilians in preparation for a mass forced evacuation of the residents still living here.
No civilians in New Orleans will be allowed to carry pistols, shotguns or other firearms, said P. Edwin Compass III, the superintendent of police. "Only law enforcement are allowed to have weapons," he said.
I'm sorry but the constitution guarantees that the power to bare arms lies in the militia, the American citizens. Not much has been made of this on the news, but if you believe in the constitution, if you are a real American, if you see armed conflict in the future, get armed, be vigilant, be ready. Your life may depend on it.
Daniel,
Interesting that a felon like you would be advocating for gun rights when you can't possess one legally yourself. Maybe someone like you knows what your capable of as a gangster arrested on illegal drug trafficking and felony gun possession.
Anyhow, thanks for the info about Saxton.
Great endorsement for Jason. He looks like hes picking up steam. He already got my vote!
Actually, there is no reason why a felon who has completed his sentence shouldn't be able to own a gun, or have any other right guaranteed by the Constitution.
Would you say a felon who has completed his sentence should be prevented from:
Going to church?
Speaking in public?
Assembling in public?
Petitioning the government?
Keeping his home free from seizure by the military?
Having his home and possessions secure?
Getting arrested only with probable cause or warrant?
Remaining silent?
Having due process of law?
Being safe from double jeopardy?
Being compensated for property seizure?
The protection of a grand jury?
Having a lawyer?
Having trial by jury?
Being safe from cruel and unusual punishment or excessive bail?
These are all rights protected by the Bill of Rights, which includes more than just the Second Amendment.
You know what "rights" are NOT in the Bill of Rights, but ARE protected, even for felons?
How about:
The "right" to suck an almost 9-month-old baby half-way out of your womb, whereupon you cut off its moving arms and legs and suck its brain out? Oh, did I say "its"? I should have said HIS or HER.
How about:
The so-called "right" to privacy, which can be used by child rapists who are still on parole and not "sentence completed" to avoid being labelled as a danger?
Funny, I never seem to hear you leftist bastards complaining about felons having THESE (or any of the other) rights.
So Daniel was stupid when he was younger. He learned the error of his ways. He paid his debt. He is a good man now. There is no reason why a judge should not reinstate ALL his rights.
Frankly, I'd rather see Daniel with a gun than an ILLEGAL ALIEN with a ballot.
The problem is that if I complained about those particular rights, as I am inclined to do from time to time, I would no longer be a Leftist Bastard, in your lexicon.
Or maybe I would. Either way.
Peod:
"I'm sorry but the constitution guarantees that the power to bare arms lies in the militia, the American citizens."
It is, in fact, the right to bear arms. And it lies in the militia, the well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state.
Well, Kael - you do work for the government, so you'd probably qualify in any case. (s)
I have a right to bear arms, and a right to bare arms.
And Dodgy Rog, you can go crawl back into your hole, now, having fulfilled your usual role here. You never have anything new to say; all you ever do is spew the same old slime. You appear to exemplify the underlying reasons for the huge success of the manufacturer of META, which is of course the active ingredient in Cory's Slug and Snail Death, and similar products.
Roger, I'm not a felon. Sorry.
My first-generation father: Come legally or stay home
Sunday, May 07, 2006
SAL ESQUIVEL
The Oregonian
MEDFORD --
T he protesters waving signs in Portland, Eugene and Alba Park in Medford might look good to you. But for me, a second-generation Mexican, and my father, who came here legally from Mexico City, the protests aren't only disturbing -- they're insulting.
Papa came here during the 1940s on a work visa, eventually married, had two children and got his permanent visa. He became a U.S. citizen 14 years later.
He worked very hard to understand the English language -- to speak and write it -- and to learn this country's history so he could pass his test. He was so adamant about being an American he allowed only English to be spoken in his home. So my sister and I never learned Spanish, something I've come to regret.
Papa's English was so good he was put in charge of a lay-up crew at a mill here in Medford that manufactured plywood. He later be came a successful restaurant owner in Texas, which he ran until his retirement about 15 years ago.
My father knew he must assimilate into America's culture and society. He loves baseball and still tracks the Chicago Cubs. (I'm a Giants fan and don't know how he learned to support the Cubbies!)
I'm all for the United States be ing a culture of immigrants -- be cause we all are. But with the open borders we have I resent that illegal immigrants aren't coming to this country with the proper paperwork and striving to become U.S. citizens.
To me, they don't seem to care about our country -- they're just interested in economic gain. I know how hard my father worked to be an American. If the illegal immigrants really cared, they'd take the time and make the effort to come here legally. They'd want to be part of our culture and society.
Instead they're being disrespectful to legal immigrants -- and to this nation.
I'm very proud of my papa. Sal Esquivel Sr. is a true American. He's loyal. At 87 years old, he still believes America is the greatest country on Earth. Our country takes different ethnic groups, religions, beliefs and cultures and blends them into a society known as America.
We're a country made of laws, and we should abide by them. Our Washington, D.C., leaders must do several things to stop this influx of illegal immigrants. First, we need some sort of penalty for businesses that hire illegal workers. Second, we need to make sure people here illegally don't receive benefits at the expense of our tax paying public.
If we penalized employers for hiring illegal workers, the demand would drop and these workers wouldn't flood into our country.
Third, we must secure our borders, but not only to stop illegal immigrants; we also must reduce drug activity and the threat of terrorist activity. It's high time our leaders took a hard stance on these issues instead of just playing politics.
I'm watching them, and so is Papa.
Sal Esquivel is a state representative from Medford (District 6) and a real estate broker.
E-mail: sal@fognot.com
Kaelri, I think you're a leftist but I for one am glad you're back to add a little intellegence to the arguments. The current group of naysayers seem hung up on attacking Daniel personally and shouting bumper-sticker platitudinal cliches. Thanks for correcting my spelling.
The subject of gun control shouldn't be a matter of left or right any more than liberty or justice. If you're against unwarranted wire taps, against illegal search and seizure, and against any one branch of the government usurping power from the other, then we're on the same side.
Who is the militia? It is every able bodied man of fighting age.
When the Founders wrote the Second Amendment, there was no "National Guard." In fact, most of them didn't want the new nation to have any sort of "standing army" at all.
The "militia" of the Founders was EVERY MAN who could be called upon in time of war to defend the homeland.
So what is "well regulated"? Many modern naysayers would have you believe it means some sort of official unit with a military structure. Again, though, we must look to what the Founders actually meant. In the vernacular of late 18th Century Colonials, "well regulated" simply meant "prepared" or "trained."
So, in the context of its writing, the Second Amendment really means that:
Since American Liberty depends on all our able-bodied men of fighting age being ready for battle, every man should be equipped with a fighting battle weapon.
Seriously.
This is not just delusional right wing zealotry. This is actual historical and contextual fact. And if anything, the Supreme Court in the 20th Century recognized this, when in U.S. v. Miller, they said that a law prohibiting a sawed-off shotgun was not unconstitutional, as the Second Amendment did not apply to weapons with no military purpose.
That's right: under 20th Century Supreme Court precedent, the Second Amendment, if anything, gives you the right to own MILITARY WEAPONS.
Look it up.
"Kaelri, I think you're a leftist but I for one am glad you're back to add a little intellegence to the arguments. The current group of naysayers seem hung up on attacking Daniel personally and shouting bumper-sticker platitudinal cliches."
Thank you, and I couldn't agree more. I'll be the first to say that Daniel's past and personal life could not possibly be less relevant.
"Thanks for correcting my spelling."
"The right to bare arms" is the punchline of too many jokes to resist. ;)
"If you're against unwarranted wire taps, against illegal search and seizure, and against any one branch of the government usurping power from the other, then we're on the same side."
Good to hear. Particularly from an ostensibly non-leftist such as yourself.
"In the vernacular of late 18th Century Colonials, 'well regulated' simply meant 'prepared' or 'trained.'"
I'd be very interested to see a source for that. Not being a philologist, myself.
Post a Comment